Leave the moratorium blowin’ in the wind

State Rep. Harold “Skip” Reilly, R-Grafton County, has filed a bill which would mean a moratorium on wind-power construction in the Granite State.

As is all too often the case with overzealous legislators, Reilly has it backward. Instead of a moratorium, the Legislature should first concentrate on whether any more regulation is needed. If so, Reilly should then focus on developing a consensus, rather than arbitrarily stifling the move to green energy.

Wind power has been an off-again, on-again prospect for decades now. Popular in Europe and selectively used in the United States, it has begun to hit its stride here in New Hampshire. Given that long-in-coming genesis, it’s not like the last few legislatures have gotten caught napping. So why punish those who now see profit in wind power and shortcut efforts by New Hampshire communities to make a buck.

In Groton, for example, news reports tell us that selectmen have signed a 15-year agreement with the company that will pay the town $528,000 — pretty much equal to the town recent budget. In years to come, Groton will net $22,000 a year.

Based on these same news reports, the real motivation behind the legislation is to give neighboring towns the ability to put the kibosh on such projects. The Groton project is said to have drawn protests from residents in the nearby the Newfound Lake and Mount Cardigan area.

That said, there are cogent reasons for a state review of applicable regulations — without the dire need for a moratorium.

“When they (the state) came up with the energy plan, they were dealing mostly with natural gas and other forms of alternative energy,” Reilly told a reporter. “It’s time now to re-evaluate where we are going and come up with a comprehensive energy plan.”

Re-evaluation is one thing. Putting the thumbscrews to an industry which is finally making headway financially — often with the blessing of local officials, as in Groton — is another.

The practical impact of Reilly’s bill, if passed, will not be a moratorium, it will be a suspension of new projects until a date later to be determined. And we know what happens when government is given forever to accomplish something — it oftentimes takes all of forever.

If Reilly is bound and determined, he should at least give state officials a deadline certain at which time the moratorium will expire. At most that should be a matter of months. If the issue of regulating wind power is of such critical importance, state regulators should be incentivized to get on the stick and get it done.